ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES IN ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPIER SMUT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NAPIER SMUT AND

STUNT RESISTANCE PROJECT IN STUNT RESISTANCE PROJECT IN TANZANIATANZANIA

Pallangyo BPallangyo B11, Maeda C, Maeda C22, Nsami E, Nsami E11, , Proud JProud J33, Hanson J, Hanson J3, 3, Katagira FKatagira F44

1National Biological Control Programme BOX 30031, Kibaha, Tanzania

2International Institute of Tropical Agriculture P.O.BOX 6224, Dar Es Salaam

3International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

4Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives, Dar es Salaam

Presented at the ASARECA/ILRI Workshop on Mitigating the Impact of Napier Grass Smut and Stunt Diseases, Addis Ababa, June 2-3, 2010

PURPOSEPURPOSE

To mitigate the effects of smut and To mitigate the effects of smut and stunt on Napier grass through the use stunt on Napier grass through the use of available genetic resourcesof available genetic resources

1. ACTIVITIES1. ACTIVITIES Survey distribution, incidences and severity Survey distribution, incidences and severity

of NSD of NSD Assemble collections of diverse clones of Assemble collections of diverse clones of

Napier grassNapier grass Evaluate new clones for biomass and Evaluate new clones for biomass and

nutritive qualitynutritive quality Screen ILRI and national collections of Napier Screen ILRI and national collections of Napier

grass for smut and stunt tolerance through grass for smut and stunt tolerance through artificial challengeartificial challenge

Synthesize information with project partners Synthesize information with project partners for wider disseminationfor wider dissemination

Share and disseminate knowledge within the Share and disseminate knowledge within the regionregion

Monitoring and evaluationMonitoring and evaluation

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS2. MATERIALS AND METHODS2.1. Survey disease incidence & 2.1. Survey disease incidence &

severityseverity

Disease incidence & severity (1- 4)Disease incidence & severity (1- 4) 1 = Nil (no plants with symptoms)1 = Nil (no plants with symptoms) 2 = Mild (< 25% of plants with disease symptoms)2 = Mild (< 25% of plants with disease symptoms) 3 = Moderate (25 – 50% of plants with disease 3 = Moderate (25 – 50% of plants with disease

symptoms)symptoms) 4 = severe (> 50% of plants with disease 4 = severe (> 50% of plants with disease

symptoms). symptoms).

Nil Moderate SevereMild

2.2. Assembling of Napier clones2.2. Assembling of Napier clones

Collection of Napier materials from wild and farmers fields

Assembling of Napier materials in nursery at ARI Kibaha

Napier nursery at SRI Kibaha

2.3. Morphological 2.3. Morphological characterizationcharacterization

Based on growth habit (growth Based on growth habit (growth form, tiller number)form, tiller number)

Leaf characteristics (leaf Leaf characteristics (leaf hairiness, roughness, color, hairiness, roughness, color, width)width)

Stem characteristics (stem Stem characteristics (stem thickness, inter node length)thickness, inter node length)

2.4. Biomass & nutritive 2.4. Biomass & nutritive qualityquality

30 clones in 3 reps30 clones in 3 reps Spreader row of diseased Spreader row of diseased

plantsplants Disease scoringDisease scoring Drying of samples Drying of samples Data analysisData analysis

2.5. Screen for disease 2.5. Screen for disease resistanceresistance

7 clones in 3 reps7 clones in 3 reps Spreader rowSpreader row Leaf hoppersLeaf hoppers Sampling at 3wks Sampling at 3wks

intervalinterval

2.6. Synthesize information for 2.6. Synthesize information for wider disseminationwider dissemination

scientific reportsscientific reports posters posters leaflets leaflets publicity reportpublicity report

2.7.Information sharing2.7.Information sharing

MeetingsMeetings WorkshopsWorkshops VisitsVisits MediaMedia

2.8. M & E2.8. M & E

MeetingsMeetings VisitsVisits

Baseline survey area

Fig 1. Napier stunt distribution in Tanzania.2008

NSD Infected areas

3. RESULTS3.1.1. Disease incidence and severity

3.1.2. Disease incidences3.1.2. Disease incidences

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Muheza (48) Lushoto (50) Hai (51) Meru (50) Tarime (60)

Name of district All (259)

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

Diseases/Pests in the farm Smut Stunt

Fig 2: Preliminary findings on diseases and pests existing

3.2.Assemble collections of Napier3.2.Assemble collections of Napier

Plant characteristicsPlant characteristics210 collections assembled in a nursery at Kibaha

30 clones identified based on morphological characteristics

Average score*

None Mild Dense

Leaf hairiness ADAXIAL 20 23.3 56.7 2.4ABAXIAL 80 20 0 1.2Sheath 30 16.7 53.3 2.2Sheath edge 6.7 56.7 36.7 2.3

Leaf Roughness ADAXIAL 3.3 83.3 13.3 2.1ABAXIAL 0 53.3 46.7 2.5

Characteristic Hairiness/Roughness (%)

3.3. Morphological characterization

*(1=None; 3=Dense/Roughest)

Table 1. Hairiness and Roughness in Napier clones

3. 4. Biomass3. 4. Biomass

Parameter

Long rains Dry season Short rains F Sig.

Plant height (cm) 193.9 66.2 61.1 0.249 1Stool diameter (cm) 19.8 19.8 21.4 6.467 0.000*** Number of tillers 9 25 23 1.367 0.152Leaf: Stem ratio 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.103 0.365Moisture content (%) 80.1 77 82.1 2.543 0.001** Fresh clump weight (g) 4022.8 1844.4 1995.6 2.453 0.002**

Seasonal performance One way ANOVA test

** and *** are p=0.05 and 0.001 respectively

Table 2. Average performance of biomass parameters across the seasons

33..5 .Disease incidence & severity5 .Disease incidence & severity

Season % NSD infected clones

At Harvest Nil Mild Moderate Severe

Long rains 20 0 20 0 0Dry season 30 0 26 3 0Short rains 73 0 66 3 3

Disease Severity (%. of clones)

Table 3. Disease incidence & severity across seasons

3.6. Tolerance to NSD3.6. Tolerance to NSD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Clones ID

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Incidence Harvest 1 Incidence Harvest 2 Incidence Harvest 3

Severity Harvest 1 Severity Harvest 2 Severity Harvest 3

Fig 3. Disease tolerance among clones in different seasons

3.7. Synthesis of 3.7. Synthesis of informationinformation

2 scientific papers 2 scientific papers 2 field reports2 field reports 3 posters (1100 copies)3 posters (1100 copies) 1 leaflet (1000 copies)1 leaflet (1000 copies) 1 publicity report1 publicity report

3.8. Information sharing3.8. Information sharing

Farmers exhibitions (30,000 stakeholders) Farmers exhibitions (30,000 stakeholders)

World Food Day (5,000)World Food Day (5,000) Civil Service exhibition (5,000)Civil Service exhibition (5,000) Scientific workshops/meetings (100)Scientific workshops/meetings (100) Media (TBC, Star TV, Radio Free Africa) Media (TBC, Star TV, Radio Free Africa)

>1M>1M Monthly meetings under LGAs (501)Monthly meetings under LGAs (501) 2 field days (30)2 field days (30) Trainings under LGAs (160)Trainings under LGAs (160)

3.8.2 Information sharing3.8.2 Information sharing

DistrictDistrict PostersPosters LeafletsLeaflets

MuhezaMuheza 100100 100100

MkingaMkinga 3030 4040

LushotoLushoto 5050 5050

RomboRombo 4040 3030

MoshiMoshi 3030 3030

MeruMeru 100100 100100

TarimeTarime 100100 100100

MulebaMuleba 5050 5050

TOTALTOTAL 500500 500500

3.8.3. Information sharing3.8.3. Information sharing

3.9.Monitoring & Evaluation3.9.Monitoring & Evaluation > 90 % of farmers in NSD infected areas > 90 % of farmers in NSD infected areas

were aware of NSD symptoms and were aware of NSD symptoms and recommended management practicesrecommended management practices

Most farmers with previously infected Most farmers with previously infected fields had applied the recommended NSD fields had applied the recommended NSD management practicesmanagement practices

WAEOs were conducting regular visits and WAEOs were conducting regular visits and report feedback to DALDOsreport feedback to DALDOs

Monthly meetings were conducted to Monthly meetings were conducted to share feedback with dairy sector share feedback with dairy sector stakeholdersstakeholders

3.9.2. Previous vs current NSD 3.9.2. Previous vs current NSD statusstatus

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% IN

CID

EN

CE

Muheza Lushoto Hai Meru Tarime All

DISTRICTS

Fig 2. % NSD INCIDENCE IN EASTERN, NORTHERN AND LAKE ZONES

2008

2010

3.9.3. Previous vs current NSD 3.9.3. Previous vs current NSD statusstatus

NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2008 NSD severity in Ndatu village, 2010

4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Napier smut disease was not observed in Napier grass materials Napier smut disease was not observed in Napier grass materials

that originated from Meru and Tarime districtsthat originated from Meru and Tarime districts

Napier Stunt Disease was observed in Napier grass materials that Napier Stunt Disease was observed in Napier grass materials that originated from Muheza, Meru and Tarime districts confirming originated from Muheza, Meru and Tarime districts confirming occurrence of the disease in those areas. occurrence of the disease in those areas.

There was significant difference in stool diameter, moisture There was significant difference in stool diameter, moisture content and fresh weights across seasons.content and fresh weights across seasons.

Fresh clump weight, dry matter content, leaf stem ratio and Fresh clump weight, dry matter content, leaf stem ratio and number of tillers were found to be higher in clone number of tillers were found to be higher in clone 1,2,6,8,11,25 and 30.1,2,6,8,11,25 and 30.

NSD incidence and severity increased with cutting NSD incidence and severity increased with cutting

frequency, frequency, 20%, 30% & >70% for first, second and third cutting respectively20%, 30% & >70% for first, second and third cutting respectively

Clone 4, 6, 11, 17, 24, 25 & 26 did not show NSD symptoms Clone 4, 6, 11, 17, 24, 25 & 26 did not show NSD symptoms throughout the trial period therefore considered to be throughout the trial period therefore considered to be tolerant to the diseasetolerant to the disease

4.2.Discussion of Results4.2.Discussion of Results Most of the tolerant clones were hairy and Most of the tolerant clones were hairy and

rough, which is not an attractive attribute rough, which is not an attractive attribute in cut and carry system.in cut and carry system.

Clones 6,11 and 25 had superior Clones 6,11 and 25 had superior overall agronomic parameter and did overall agronomic parameter and did not show symptoms of stunt diseases not show symptoms of stunt diseases throughout the three harvests throughout the three harvests

There was a decline of NSD incidence and There was a decline of NSD incidence and severity following farmers adoption to severity following farmers adoption to recommended NSD management practicesrecommended NSD management practices

5. 5. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

There is no evidence of Napier smut disease There is no evidence of Napier smut disease occurrence in Tanzaniaoccurrence in Tanzania

Napier stunt disease occurs in Meru and Tarime Napier stunt disease occurs in Meru and Tarime districtsdistricts

There is a need for public awareness There is a need for public awareness creation to avoid spread of the disease in creation to avoid spread of the disease in other Napier growing areas other Napier growing areas

There is a need for screening of the high There is a need for screening of the high yielding and tolerant clones to confirm yielding and tolerant clones to confirm resistance before distributing them to resistance before distributing them to farmersfarmers

NSSP to be incorporated in LGAs action NSSP to be incorporated in LGAs action planplan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ASARECAASARECA ILRIILRI MAFSCMAFSC LGAsLGAs FARMERSFARMERS